CDZ Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?

[jwoodie]

Yes, but not in the way most people assume. This decision was defective for many reasons, but its greatest error was creating an unconstitutional basis for federal intervention in state law making under the guise of a newly concocted "right to privacy."

Since the U.S. Constitution makes no direct or indirect references to abortion, SCOTUS should expressly overturn Roe v. Wade and affirm that abortion is strictly a matter of state law. If New York wants to promote this practice and Alabama wants to prohibit it, so be it. Let the people of those states determine what their laws should be. If they want to change their laws, there are existing means to do so.

 

[sartre play]

NO.

 

[Crixus]

Yes, but not in the way most people assume. This decision was defective for many reasons, but its greatest error was creating an unconstitutional basis for federal intervention in state law making under the guise of a newly concocted "right to privacy."

Since the U.S. Constitution makes no direct or indirect references to abortion, SCOTUS should expressly overturn Roe v. Wade and affirm that abortion is strictly a matter of state law. If New York wants to promote this practice and Alabama wants to prohibit it, so be it. Let the people of those states determine what their laws should be. If they want to change their laws, there are existing means to do so.

Yes and for the most part I agree with you on how it should work. But it should not be given to the states to decide when it can be done. In new your a woman can kill the child up until birth if the mother is stressed out. That’s a fake argument and people should be offended it’s even used. Congress needs to make a law, define what abortion is, when it can be done and when it can’t.

 

[candycorn]

Yes, but not in the way most people assume. This decision was defective for many reasons, but its greatest error was creating an unconstitutional basis for federal intervention in state law making under the guise of a newly concocted "right to privacy."

Since the U.S. Constitution makes no direct or indirect references to abortion, SCOTUS should expressly overturn Roe v. Wade and affirm that abortion is strictly a matter of state law. If New York wants to promote this practice and Alabama wants to prohibit it, so be it. Let the people of those states determine what their laws should be. If they want to change their laws, there are existing means to do so.

Can you say the same for segregation in that case?

 

[Oddball]

Yes...Even a lot of lefty lawyers agree that the decision is really bad law.

 

[task0778]

In this day and age when contraceptives are widely available and morning after pills are too, it's hard to justify terminating a human fetus except in cases of rape, incest, or the mother's health. It bothers me when so many people trumpet the woman's right to choose, ignoring the rights of the fetus. If she chose to have unprotected sex then the responsibility that both parents have to the unborn really should be paramount.

IMHO, Roe v Wade was too much of a legal stretch to say the right to privacy means you also have a right to an abortion. Some say it shouldn't be a state issue, but I think that it for sure should not be a federal issue.

 

[Leo123]

I always thought the 'right to privacy' was a bad argument because that right was suspended when the woman accepted semen into her vagina. What is growing inside her is not hers alone. The court took away the man's rights. You can bet one thing though, IF a baby is born, she will expect the man to provide support. He will have 0 rights.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, but not in the way most people assume. This decision was defective for many reasons, but its greatest error was creating an unconstitutional basis for federal intervention in state law making under the guise of a newly concocted "right to privacy."

Since the U.S. Constitution makes no direct or indirect references to abortion, SCOTUS should expressly overturn Roe v. Wade and affirm that abortion is strictly a matter of state law. If New York wants to promote this practice and Alabama wants to prohibit it, so be it. Let the people of those states determine what their laws should be. If they want to change their laws, there are existing means to do so.

Actually, the 14th Amendment very clearly protects individual rights over states rights, including the right to terminate a pregnancy. This was it's whole purpose.

What Roe v. Wade did was recognize reality. The abortion laws on the books were unworkable and routinely ignored at the time. Women walked into their doctor's offices, got abortions performed, the Doctor wrote something else down on the chart, everyone went home happy.

The only time the laws were "enforced" was if an inept doctor killed or injured his patients.

What the justices didn't count on was the Evagelicals glomming onto the the issue after Segregation wasn't selling anymore.

 

[JoeB131]

I always thought the 'right to privacy' was a bad argument because that right was suspended when the woman accepted semen into her vagina. What is growing inside her is not hers alone. The court took away the man's rights. You can bet one thing though, IF a baby is born, she will expect the man to provide support. He will have 0 rights.

Yup. And that's how it should work.

When men have to deal with all the medical consequences of pregnancy, then they get more of a say.

 

[JoeB131]

In this day and age when contraceptives are widely available and morning after pills are too, it's hard to justify terminating a human fetus except in cases of rape, incest, or the mother's health. It bothers me when so many people trumpet the woman's right to choose, ignoring the rights of the fetus. If she chose to have unprotected sex then the responsibility that both parents have to the unborn really should be paramount.

"Hey, ladies, if you didn't pump your body full of artificial hormones every day on the hope that you might have sex... then you totally deserve an unwanted pregnancy you can't afford!"

Fetuses aren't people, therefore they have no rights.

IMHO, Roe v Wade was too much of a legal stretch to say the right to privacy means you also have a right to an abortion. Some say it shouldn't be a state issue, but I think that it for sure should not be a federal issue.

No, it had to become a federal issue because making it a state issue just amplified the inequities of it. A poor woman in Alabama was stuck with a back-alley quack to get her abortion, while an affluent women in Alabama could drive up to New York and get her pregnancy terminated.

You see, the thing you anti-abortion types don't get is that there just as many abortions going on before Roe v. Wade as after. Abortion laws in 1973 were kind of like prostitution laws are now... they were on the books, everyone ignored them.

How do we know this?

The birth rate didn't drop in 1973.

While it DID drop in 1965 when birth control pills came on the market, there was not a significant drop after Roe.

 

[gipper]

In this day and age when contraceptives are widely available and morning after pills are too, it's hard to justify terminating a human fetus except in cases of rape, incest, or the mother's health. It bothers me when so many people trumpet the woman's right to choose, ignoring the rights of the fetus. If she chose to have unprotected sex then the responsibility that both parents have to the unborn really should be paramount.

"Hey, ladies, if you didn't pump your body full of artificial hormones every day on the hope that you might have sex... then you totally deserve an unwanted pregnancy you can't afford!"

Fetuses aren't people, therefore they have no rights.

IMHO, Roe v Wade was too much of a legal stretch to say the right to privacy means you also have a right to an abortion. Some say it shouldn't be a state issue, but I think that it for sure should not be a federal issue.

No, it had to become a federal issue because making it a state issue just amplified the inequities of it. A poor woman in Alabama was stuck with a back-alley quack to get her abortion, while an affluent women in Alabama could drive up to New York and get her pregnancy terminated.

You see, the thing you anti-abortion types don't get is that there just as many abortions going on before Roe v. Wade as after. Abortion laws in 1973 were kind of like prostitution laws are now... they were on the books, everyone ignored them.

How do we know this?

The birth rate didn't drop in 1973.

While it DID drop in 1965 when birth control pills came on the market, there was not a significant drop after Roe.

You and Heinrich Himmler have much in common. Like you and unborn babies, he thought Jews had no rights. So like you and unborn babies, he murdered them.

Shame!

 

[badger2]

SCOTUS delirium resides in the fact that there never is a time of non-life during development of the fetus, only the presupposition that this life is not a person. SCOTUS is a Manhattan trollop for the game of signifier-signified played out and inscribed on living Homo sapiens. For example, William O. Douglas in Griswold vs Connecticut goes bananas with terms such as "emanations" and "penumbras." This case also links to Arthur Goldberg's concurring opinion which used the Ninth Amendment. Recall that JFK's Presidential Commission on the Status of Women also included Goldberg as a member. Goldberg was the founder of Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality.

emanation: the origination of the world conceived in Neoplatonism not as a creation out of nothing but as a series of hierarchically descending radiations from the godhead to nous and other intermediate stages and ultimately to matter; a quality or property issuing from a source.

penumbra: space of partial illumination surrounding or adjoining a region in which something exists in a lesser degree; a marginal area.

Douglas's delirium is that he uses both a theological model (and [italics]) Platonism with which to establish the reasoning of "privacy" in Griswold v. Connecticut, whereas in reality the purely biological life of the "pre-personal" singularity of the fetus has remained constant up to the time of the death (or after a certain trimester, murder) of the now fetus-become-person.

 

[JoeB131]

You and Heinrich Himmler have much in common. Like you and unborn babies, he thought Jews had no rights. So like you and unborn babies, he murdered them.

Shame!

I think you are a bit confused. Not only was abortion against the law in Nazi germany, but it was the only country that actually EXECUTED abortion providers, the wet dream of the anti-choice right.

 

[Staidhup]

Roe v Wade is and always should have been a states issue. Overturn it and let the states exercise their responsibilities to the people.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yes, but not in the way most people assume. This decision was defective for many reasons, but its greatest error was creating an unconstitutional basis for federal intervention in state law making under the guise of a newly concocted "right to privacy."

Since the U.S. Constitution makes no direct or indirect references to abortion, SCOTUS should expressly overturn Roe v. Wade and affirm that abortion is strictly a matter of state law. If New York wants to promote this practice and Alabama wants to prohibit it, so be it. Let the people of those states determine what their laws should be. If they want to change their laws, there are existing means to do so.

Actually, the 14th Amendment very clearly protects individual rights over states rights, including the right to terminate a pregnancy. This was it's whole purpose.

What Roe v. Wade did was recognize reality. The abortion laws on the books were unworkable and routinely ignored at the time. Women walked into their doctor's offices, got abortions performed, the Doctor wrote something else down on the chart, everyone went home happy.

The only time the laws were "enforced" was if an inept doctor killed or injured his patients.

What the justices didn't count on was the Evagelicals glomming onto the the issue after Segregation wasn't selling anymore.

Correct.

The right to privacy is also clearly codified in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th Amendments.

 

[badger2]

The direction of "right to privacy" goes from federal to state to the individual. It can't rest on states' rights, either because the State is always already fundamentally terrorist. That is why there is now an exodus of the moneyed population out of Illinois due to recent legislation. Abortion refugees can do the same type of exodus to further the evolution that exposes the pathology, which is the non-law within law.

 

[martybegan]

Yes, but not in the way most people assume. This decision was defective for many reasons, but its greatest error was creating an unconstitutional basis for federal intervention in state law making under the guise of a newly concocted "right to privacy."

Since the U.S. Constitution makes no direct or indirect references to abortion, SCOTUS should expressly overturn Roe v. Wade and affirm that abortion is strictly a matter of state law. If New York wants to promote this practice and Alabama wants to prohibit it, so be it. Let the people of those states determine what their laws should be. If they want to change their laws, there are existing means to do so.

Yes and for the most part I agree with you on how it should work. But it should not be given to the states to decide when it can be done. In new your a woman can kill the child up until birth if the mother is stressed out. That’s a fake argument and people should be offended it’s even used. Congress needs to make a law, define what abortion is, when it can be done and when it can’t.

The Federal Constitution is moot on the point. if NY wants the law they passed, they can have it.

The only restriction I would have is a State can't punish someone for going out of State for an Abortion.

 

[martybegan]

Yes, but not in the way most people assume. This decision was defective for many reasons, but its greatest error was creating an unconstitutional basis for federal intervention in state law making under the guise of a newly concocted "right to privacy."

Since the U.S. Constitution makes no direct or indirect references to abortion, SCOTUS should expressly overturn Roe v. Wade and affirm that abortion is strictly a matter of state law. If New York wants to promote this practice and Alabama wants to prohibit it, so be it. Let the people of those states determine what their laws should be. If they want to change their laws, there are existing means to do so.

Can you say the same for segregation in that case?

Governmental segregation would violate equal protection under the law.

Pretty explicitly actually.

 

[martybegan]

Yes, but not in the way most people assume. This decision was defective for many reasons, but its greatest error was creating an unconstitutional basis for federal intervention in state law making under the guise of a newly concocted "right to privacy."

Since the U.S. Constitution makes no direct or indirect references to abortion, SCOTUS should expressly overturn Roe v. Wade and affirm that abortion is strictly a matter of state law. If New York wants to promote this practice and Alabama wants to prohibit it, so be it. Let the people of those states determine what their laws should be. If they want to change their laws, there are existing means to do so.

Actually, the 14th Amendment very clearly protects individual rights over states rights, including the right to terminate a pregnancy. This was it's whole purpose.

What Roe v. Wade did was recognize reality. The abortion laws on the books were unworkable and routinely ignored at the time. Women walked into their doctor's offices, got abortions performed, the Doctor wrote something else down on the chart, everyone went home happy.

The only time the laws were "enforced" was if an inept doctor killed or injured his patients.

What the justices didn't count on was the Evagelicals glomming onto the the issue after Segregation wasn't selling anymore.

The purpose was to stop the States from messing with the Freedmen. You think they really assumed it would be used for Abortion?

Plenty of States had restrictions, and plenty of people weren't happy about it, or happy about the States without restrictions.

By making it a federal issue, it got turned into a fight. One we are still fighting over 40 years later. If left to the States, places where people wanted it would protect it, and it would not have become the issue it is now.

 

[martybegan]

I always thought the 'right to privacy' was a bad argument because that right was suspended when the woman accepted semen into her vagina. What is growing inside her is not hers alone. The court took away the man's rights. You can bet one thing though, IF a baby is born, she will expect the man to provide support. He will have 0 rights.

Yup. And that's how it should work.

When men have to deal with all the medical consequences of pregnancy, then they get more of a say.

Then you don't support true equality.